# C_2019054EN.01002501.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/25

---

Action brought on 4 December 2018 — Adraces v Commission

(Case T-714/18)

(2019/C 54/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Associaçao para o Desenvolvimento da Raia Centro Sul — Adraces (Vila Velha de Ródao, Portugal) (represented by: G. Anastácio, D. Pirra Xarepe, J. Whyte and M. Barros Silva)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare invalid Commission Decision ARES (2018) 4940694, of 26 September 2018, with brought to an end the framework partnership agreement No COM/LIS/ED/2018-2020_1, and order the Commission to re-establish the previously existing situation of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare invalid Commission Decision ARES (2018) 4940694, of 26 September 2018, with brought to an end the framework partnership agreement No COM/LIS/ED/2018-2020_1, and order the Commission to re-establish the previously existing situation of the applicant.

| — | Order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the Commission unilaterally revoked a public contract, without presenting any basis or justification for that purpose. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the Commission unilaterally revoked a public contract, without presenting any basis or justification for that purpose.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good faith, in so far as, by introducing into the framework agreement in question a general revocation clause according to which it may terminate that agreement arbitrarily, without any basis or justification, the Commission misused its powers and ignored the balance of interests underlying any contract, whether public or private. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good faith, in so far as, by introducing into the framework agreement in question a general revocation clause according to which it may terminate that agreement arbitrarily, without any basis or justification, the Commission misused its powers and ignored the balance of interests underlying any contract, whether public or private.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of respect for the legitimate rights and interests of individuals, which is binding on the administration in respect of public contracts, in so far as the Commission unilaterally revoked the agreement in the present case, in a manner that was purely arbitrary and without basis, which is prohibited by the principle pacta sunt servanda. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of respect for the legitimate rights and interests of individuals, which is binding on the administration in respect of public contracts, in so far as the Commission unilaterally revoked the agreement in the present case, in a manner that was purely arbitrary and without basis, which is prohibited by the principle pacta sunt servanda.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of sound administration, in so far as the Commission revoked that agreement on the basis of a simple newspaper article, without making a sufficiently detailed assessment of the specific case, which constitutes a clear case of maladministration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of sound administration, in so far as the Commission revoked that agreement on the basis of a simple newspaper article, without making a sufficiently detailed assessment of the specific case, which constitutes a clear case of maladministration.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as the Commission revoked that agreement, without any basis or justification, in response to the conviction of an employee of the applicant for the offence of falsification and fraud which had nothing to do with the applicant’s activity nor with the Commission’s powers and competences. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as the Commission revoked that agreement, without any basis or justification, in response to the conviction of an employee of the applicant for the offence of falsification and fraud which had nothing to do with the applicant’s activity nor with the Commission’s powers and competences.

---